About your Search

20130423
20130423
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but a gunshot wound to the neck left him unable to speak. it was unclear if he was read his miranda rights. but in washington, white house spokesman jay carney said he's a naturalized u.s. citizen, so he will not face a military tribunal. >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice, under us law. u.s. citizen can not be trialed, tried rather in military commissions. and it's important to remember that since 9-11 we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. >> brown: tsarnaev was also likely to face state charges in the shooting death of a police officer at m.i.t. it all followed his dramatic capture friday evening, when he was found hiding and wounded in a boat behind a home in the boston suburb of watertown. his older brother tamarlen died hours earlier in a shoot-out with police that triggered the all-day manhunt and shut down the city. yesterday, on cbs, massachusetts governor deval patrick stood by the unprecedented measures. >> i think people understood that we were
and that led to life in prison. >> john: this brings new elements to us. not being a lawyer, the miranda exception to be used on the suspect only if a terror threat seems emanant. can you explain how that works and has that been tested in court before? >> sure, the public safety exemption to miranda allows the fbi to interrogate without mirandaizeing them an without council. this helps them to determine whether or not there is anyone else in the support structure as tim clemente discussed earlier, if there are any support structure and it does present a potential problem a potential evidentiary problem for prosecution at trial in so far a federal judge could decide certain evidence is not admissible in court. but when you look at the massive amount of evidence that has been amassed in this case it's unlikely that they would not be able to get a conviction. it makes sense that they would proceed on this basis empty with the concern of a possible international connection. >> and they miranda mirandaized tim mcveigh but they didn't have as much and he didn't present as a foreign threat. i'v
gathering purposes since he's been president. when we read these people their miranda rights and give them a lawyer the only way you can gather intelligence is if the terror suspect and the lawyer will allow you to do so. intelligence gathering through plea bargaining is not going to make us safe. jenna: so we spoke to a former member of the fbi on our show yesterday that seems to not have a problem with miranda rights, that is their opinion. we'll see what they get as far as information from this one suspect. >> can i mention something. jenna: please. >> i don't have a problem with miranda rights. this man can only be tried in federal court. he's never eligible for military commissions. a first year law student could convict this person. what i'm worried about is what does he know about future attacks? he's telling us that his brother was the bad guy, he's sort of just along for the ride. they had no international connections. guess what, he's down-playing his involvement. what i am suggesting is that we use the national security legal system where we can interview him without a lawyer to
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
they not have read his miranda rights to him yesterday if that is the case? do you leave the door of legal opportunity open a while longer. >> there are two separate issues. the public safety exception applies regardless of the type of offense that the government is investigating, and using the public safety exception is recognized by the united states supreme court. it's a lawful way of trying to get information in a very short window of time tinge le particularly when you're concerned about public safety issues as the investigators certainly were as a result of the horrific acts that the bombing suspects, the bombing defendants who are h are accused of. bill: this is a guy to lived here more than ten years. came here 2002 if memory serves. your case with richard reid he was far from an american citizen, he was far from even making a home here. what have we done in 12 years? make sure that the prosecutions can be successful? >> i would suggest that we should be using all the tools that both the united states supreme court has indicated are available in order to keep america safe, and all
as this they wouldn't screw something like that up. >> stephanie: the miranda rights not being read right away -- clearly that was an emergency. perhaps i'm not as versed of my civil liberties as i should be. >> in danger of being punted. >> stephanie: exactly. >> talking to you sorority girl. >> stephanie: kevin in dc. welcome. >> caller: good morning. what a sight for sore eyes as always. i mean you're a sight for sore eyes -- >> stephanie: sure. all right. thank you. >> caller: sorry. it's early what do you want? [ laughter ] >> stephanie: uh-huh. >> caller: i was calling kind of in frustration. does everything have to be political? the boston tragedy, what has hand to those poor people i'm still horrified about it. but the caller that called you the day after and tried to ridiculously compare it to bush and the official that was babbled about the [ inaudible ] that had an ak 15. are these people human? how do we get to this point? i'm not all saying all democrats or liberals or progressives whatever you want to call it all have halos over their head but it appears to me we
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)